Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

swimgeek writes "A new walk-through airport lie detector being made in Israel may prove to be the toughest challenge yet for potential hijackers or drugs smugglers. The product has been tested in Russia and should be commercialized soon. The software in the detector picks up uncontrollable tremors in the voice that give away liars or those with something to hide, say its designers. Passengers that fail the test are then required to undergo further questioning or even search."

So how many people will get searched as terrorists because their voice is shaky because they're cheating on their wife, didn't tell their parents they were going to costa rica with their friends, or told their employer they were going to a family reunion? Not everyone with "something to hide" is a lawbreaker.

Not everyone with something to hide is a law breaker, however they're not talking about using this to convict people of crimes (nor to question people about their extramarital affairs) - they only want to use it to help determine who they should check more closely.I am sure I would set such a machine off every time I walk through a security gate - I'm just a generally nervous person. Do I care? Of course not - It's for a good cause! It improves security, reduces the cost effectiveness of security, and ma

OK so about 18 months ago I lost my job outsourced to India and I went travelling. Had a ticked UK -> Oz stopping off in the US. I had a flight in to the east coast of US, flight out from west coast and I was making my own way across by planes trains and automobiles. I got stopped EVERY SINGLE FLIGHT for extra security checks, and I got talking to various TSA guys and one of them said basically because I was a single guy flying one way it was causing the extra checks. It seems stupid, if you want to

Ok, the airport security is silly. I might note that I am currently writing this post from inside a US airport.
I'm a commuter. I fly home for the weekends. There's lots of us like that here. The economy bites.
The 2 things that will absolutely get you a special going over are:
1) One-way ticket
2) Buying your ticket with cash
I fly a LOT. I've never even been looked at. I constantly fly with super weird computer equipment, today I have a handheld ultrasound machine. Does the TSA guy have any idea what that

Do I care? Of course not - It's for a good cause! It improves security

I've heard way too much of this attitude. The USA founders defended personal liberty, but the average USA sheeple just assumes that if someone tells them "it's for a good cause: security," they feel all warm inside and let everyone get herded. Stand up for your rights, tell your congressfolk that the government doesn't need more powers, or just fuck off, please.

Count me as another guy who can't stand this attitude any longer. It's for a good cause! For the sake of security, cut my balls off! Sorry, but I am a German who has just had to accept that his Secretary of the Interior bypassed parliament to get RFID passports with biometric information (fingerprints, face vectors) through. You know where this guy came from? He was a lawyer defending a leftist terrorist organization in the 1970s. Now it's obviously a small step from the extreme left to the (semi?-)fascist right - at least the "individual liberties" question is a no-brainer for them. Okay, it was an "or else" question: the US threatened to demand tourist visa from everyone traveling to the USA - but i'd rather accept the lenghty process of applying for a visa everytime I want to go see New York City instead of having my OWN government collaborate without any public discussion and bypassing parliament through some EU loophole.

It's the US's right to demand visa, and I would gladly comply (or not go there, whatever!) - but it's MY government's duty to act in my interest, not constantly threatening me. And besides, what's a mere 130 EUR ($150?) for a passport that's going to be microwaved in my kitchen anyway?

Whether it's justifiable to curtail freedom for the purpose of safety isn't even the right argument, though, because that's not what they're doing. They're curtailing freedom for the appearance of safety, dedicating their time and money (or rather, your money if you live or work here) towards measures that are highly visible, highly intrusive -- and fundamentally useless.

OTOH, one has to critically analyze those techniques. "Lie detectors", ALL "lie detectors", simply DO NOT WORK. They are a scam based on intimidation. I actually read the article and this is more of the same crap. Here are the key quotes:... passengers don headphones at a console and answer "yes" or "no" into a microphone to questions about whether they are planning something illicit... "Some may feel nervous because they have used drugs, while having no intention to smuggle drugs," [Amir Lieberman, CEO of the company making this thing] said....

So it seems that one of the questions you're asked is whether or not you've used "drugs". Makes you wonder what other personal questions it asks? The answer: Lots. The way lie detectors "work" is that the interviewer asks a long series of questions, many of which are personal, and many people are VERY likely to lie about (Have you ever stolen from an employer? for example). The interviewer is now confident that you've lied about SOMETHING in his presence, so he then proceeds to intimidate the subject by CLAIMING that he can tell whether or not he's lying. The idea is to trick the subject into making admissions.

So how does that apply here? The users of the system "know" that EVERYONE who uses the system is "lying" so they have a built in excuse to pull people aside that are "suspicious". Like Arabic people for example. In the context of American airport security it simply provides an excuse to profile people.

Do I care? Of course not - It's for a good cause! It improves security

There's always a chance that terrorists smuggle tweapons in their rectums. That's why people should be randomly taken to rectal search. I'm sure you wouldn't care, it's for good cause and you have nothing to hide in your ass.

So how many people will get searched as terrorists because their voice is shaky because they're cheating on their wife, didn't tell their parents they were going to costa rica with their friends, or told their employer they were going to a family reunion?

"I'm aware of the risks of terrorism, and I don't give a fuck if 20 guys with box cutters hijack this flight and smash it into a building, killing thousands of people, just so long as I'm not inconvenienced"

You do know that it's basically impossible for that to every happen again, right?

No-one will ever again allow hijackers to take control of a plane. And, no-one will ever again allow hijackers to take control of a plane armed with tools no more dangerous than a ballpoint pen.

"yeah that was horrible... but that's the PAST!! It'll never happen again! It can't happen again! We're smarter now!!"

Um, yeah, pretty much. Sure, you can come up with some Clancy-esque plot where the terrorists sneak nerve gas aboard and kill or incapacitate everyone on board, but knives, boxcutters, and even handguns won't do it now that passengers and crew know they have to fight to the death.

My god. People like you really exist? Thats interesting, I thought it was just a myth that people who were willing to let the government run their life existed. I guess not.The whole point of this discussion is that trading personal liberty for the proposed security is a red herring. You just lose liberty, and dont gain any real security, other than the fairytale type. So really, you end up trading personal liberty for something a little bit more clever than Little Red Riding hood. If someone wants to take

If the passengers of those flights had not been prevented from having weapons they could have easily overwhelmed dudes with boxcutters. It's a double edged sword. On the other hand, explosives are definitely something you can detect without being so fuckin' invasive and have no legitimate use.

Don't you mean, "I'm aware of the risks of terrorism, and I don't give a fuck if 20 guys with box cutters hijack this flight and smash it into a building, killing thousands of people, just so long as I'm not inconvenienced" instead?

I guess you could put it that way. I just don't think terrorism is that big a risk compared to other things, nor do I think "lie detectors" are terribly likely to help.

Well, there's absolutely nothing about "lie detectors" that will prevent this. This is truly idiotic, and will:1) serve to falsely finger innocent people2) instill a false sense of confidence that those flagged as "telling the truth" are not a problem.

Do you *really* think all the crap going on in airports is doing any good?!

Little if any of it is really making a plane flight any safer than it was before. There are still people getting on planes with things they aren't supposed to. And so what if someone gets on with a box cutter? Now that the pilots are required to stay locked in the cockpit, all that person could do is injure/kill some passengers. And I doubt he'd get far at that, once other passengers figured out what was up.

And then we have some really bullshit rules. Grandma can't take her knitting needles along, but I can carry all the pens and pencils I want. Yeah, this really makes sense...

I wouldn't complain if I was just "inconvenienced". But when I have to show up HOURS ahead of my scheduled flight just to get to the terminal, when - after I've made it to the terminal early to insure an early seat selection (yeah, I usually fly Southwest) - I stand a chance of being dragged out of line for some TSA goon to paw through my carryons, when it's actually just about as fast for me to drive 500 miles as it is to fly to the same destination?!?

That is FAR from "inconvenienced". I don't know how you manage to get through in only 10-15 minutes more. I've never had that sort of experience.

I'm tired of the way we - the citizens and paying customers - are both treated as helpless waifs that can't fend for ourselves and simultaneously presumed guilty of some heinous act. That's why last summer when I headed off to visit relatives halfway across the country and on into Canada I drove the whole way. I didn't have to speak to a single "person of authority" the whole way, except for 30 seconds at the border crossing. (Not to mention, I would have paid MORE - about double! - for the priviledge of being abused by the TSA goons!)

I started a new courier job, and was amazed by how much paperwork is required to ship a package on a flight and pick one up from the cargo terminal these days! They even have a federal security agent who randomly walks around the terminal lot trying to open the doors of your vehicle while you're inside trying to drop off an outgoing package or pick up an incoming one. If he/she is able to - then you're immediately stopped from making the delivery or receiving it.(The theory being "You're responsible for t

Don't you mean, "I'm aware of the risks of terrorism, and I don't give a fuck if 20 guys with box cutters hijack this flight and smash it into a building, killing thousands of people, just so long as I'm not inconvenienced" instead?

Because that's what you're saying, even if you don't realize it.

If it were merely an inconvenience then I wouldn't mind at all. However I dislike it being assumed that I'm a criminal in order to be a customer for a particular company. Scanning my luggage was one thing, but the li

I'm willing to trade 10-15 minutes of my time every time I fly (and that's pretty damn often) if it means that thousands of people might not die needlessly.

It's not ever going to happen again in any of our lifetimes. The terrorists burned that plan from ever working again because the pilots and people on the plane know that they're dead either way, so there's no reason not to resist. If they have a bomb, no difference. Dead when the bomb goes off or when the airliner hits whatever they're aiming at. No one on the plane has anything to lose. You can't control people with nothing to lose.

The 10-15 minutes multiplied by the millions of people who fly each day, the money for all the extra security...it's all meaningless. We're wasting millions of man-hours and millions of dollars to try and stop something that's not ever going to happen until a new generation comes along with "don't resist" drilled into their heads so a hundred of them just sit there like sheep and let five guys drive them into a wall.

But you can bet the terrorists know the things we're missing. That's where the next one will come from. Somewhere we're not expecting. And Condi Rice will be on TV going, "Who could have guessed they would use..." whatever it was. A little success for them goes a long way. We'll tie ourselves in knots and exhaust our treasury fighting phantoms. We'll over-react, like usual, and end up making more enemies than we started with while expending billions to little or no effect in the process.

Well, not all hijackers are sending planes into buildings. Have you heard of any others? One, I think, previously. In fact, there are enough (an understatement) highly suspicious unanswered questions about those hijackings that the conspiracy theorists have topped the JFK body of ravings.

I'm in doubt myself about the official story, and there are only two degrees of separation between myself and one of the deceased flight stewards (

yes, I'm starting to like my 30min train ride to 2blocks from the office even more."the first stage of the test takes between 30-75 seconds"30-75sec per person for just the first part, that's only going to add another few hours before boarding. If the terrorists can train their operatives to resist torture, you'd think they might be able to condition themselves to pass an audio lie detector. Say you ask if they're planning anything illegal and they don't believe hijacking a plane isn't illlegal, I think Sei

I've also abandoned flying, though I can't even estimate the number of times I'd flown before that.

As far as security goes, even if the system really works, I can already see lots of problems. For example, false positives from people who have OTHER things to hide that have nothing to do with airplanes. Or even more seriously, false negatives from people who are using drugs or some trick to reduce their voice stress under the detection threshold. Even more serious than that, we have true negatives that are

I do a fair amount of flying and, to be honest, I'm not seeing insanely tight airport security on a routine basis in the United States. So maybe now instead of being delayed in the customs line while I'm trying to get to my connecting flight I get a quick interview with a national guard officer or a short random search (a look through my laptop bag and a wave of the metal detector) before boarding. The added security is not being applied consistently, at least at the airports I've been to, and it hasn't bee

If only taking a ship was a valid alternative for travelling overseas.

I've actually looked in to this, and the only sort of sea transportation available is aboard freighters, which often take on a dozen or so passengers at a time. It's a bit pricey--higher than air travel but lower than cruise ships (which take too damn long to get where they're going anyway, and cost tons of money; they're not transportion, really). Also, their schedules can be hard to work with.

They're probably the cheapest way to do a round-the-world tour, though, and some shipping companies offer just that. Surprisingly little info online, but apparently there is an underground of "low-luxury" travellers who like take a less tourist-y route, and there are newsletters and magazines for this sort of thing.

I fully intend to take at least one voyage like this at some point in my life.

for innocent passengers as well, who, when faced with M-16 toting guys can't avoid an "uncontrollable tremor" in their voice.

No mention of the false positive rate on this. If just 1 in a million passenger is a terrorist, and given the number of passenger flights per year without bombings on US planes it has got to be way up there, the false positive rate it going to need to be way WAY down there.

Indeed. I would think that a lot of people are nervous (if not scared downright shitless) about taking a plane in the first place, and then scared even more by the armed forces and uniformed security staff, and now they have to be scared of failing the lie detector test too?

TFA: "...12 percent of passengers tend to show stress even when they have nothing to hide."

This means that, if one in every 1 million passengers is a real terrorist, then there will be 120,000 false positives for every single terrorist. This makes for a useless system. If you're an airport worker and you've just seen your 100,000th false positive, what's the likelihood that you're going to trust the system anymore? Answer: You're not. Long before that point, you will have started waving everyone through. Even if only 0.1 percent of people fail the test, that's still 1000 false positives per terrorist, and it's too much.

I wish I could find the original slashdot comment I saved this from. I googled for it briefly and found the slashdot story [slashdot.org] but couldn't find the comment. If you do, please reply with it.

--The following was written by someone else--.

"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"

"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"

I wrote about this a while ago. Here's the text:

"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Ever heard that one? I work in information security, so I have heard it more than my fair share. I've always hated that reasoning, because I am a little bit paranoid by nature, something which serves me very well in my profession. So my standard response to people who have asked that question near me has been "because I'm paranoid." But that doesn't usually help, since most people who would ask that question see paranoia as a bad thing to begin with. So for a long time I've been trying to come up with a valid, reasoned, and intelligent answer which shoots the holes in the flawed logic that need to be there.

And someone unknowingly provided me with just that answer today. In a conversation about hunting, somebody posted this about prey animals and hunters:"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"but in a brilliant (and very funny) retort, someone else said:"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"

Suddenly it made sense, that nagging thing in the back of my head. The logical reason why a reasonable dose of paranoia is healthy. Because it's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH. People who commit murder or otherwise deprive others of their Natural Rights are afraid of the TRUTH, because it is the light of TRUTH that will help bring them to justice.

But it's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters. And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH. But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it. And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself. And these, the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it, are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known.

They are the hunters, and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters, and to run away from them. Do not be fooled when a hunter says "why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?" Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.

Though I've hardly refined it, anytime I've received this response I ask the person if they've ever used a dressing room in a clothing store.

Just about everyone has used a dressing room...so the question is...what do they have to hide? Why doesn't the person undress and try the clothes on in front of everyone? They have nothing to hide. Everyone's got body parts like everyone else.

"The one person [of 500] found to be planning something illegal was the one who failed our test....around 12 percent of passengers tend to show stress even when they have nothing to hide."

I'm not sure how to reconcile these two statements, especially since the 12% figure was used in a "those who fail" context. I would guess that the former statement is marketing spin, especially since it makes claims about the plans of the people tested,

Richard Feynman, when he was in college, once helped steal and hide the door of two guys in the fraternity who were being obnoxious twits about keeping the door to their room closed.

They searched the place high and low, never finding the door. Someone suggested the fraternity President ask each member, on their honor as a member of the fraternity, if they had stolen the door. So he worked his way down the line, and came to Feynman.

"Richard Feynman, on your honor as a member of the fraternity, did you steal the door?"

"Yes."

He replied, "Quit screwing around, Feynman!", and moved on to the next guy. Everyone else denied having taken the door.

Eventually Feynman took pity on the guys and returned the door and (I believe) confessed. When he did, there was an uproar, as people claimed he had lied.

A "Lie Detector" is a fantasy. Machines can detect physiological clues to nervousness, and that's it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames [wikipedia.org]> Aldrich Ames passed his polygraph exams for years, while he was getting every US agent in Russia killed.

Depending on fantasies like "lie detectors" distracts law enforcement from practicing solid investigation.

If by "lie detector" you mean polygraph tests, then you're right -- they are bunk. A machine that detects lies by some other means is not impossible though -- you can detect lies with an MRI machine [wired.com], for example. How you would integrate that into an airport, I don't know.

Actually, if you RTFriendlyA that you linked, you'll see that the fMRI procedure detects changes in brain activity associated with anxiety and impulse control. So conceptually it's not necessarily any closer to being a "lie detector" than the polygraph (though possibly better at detecting anxiety, or possibly not).

On the other hand, fMRI would be very effective at stopping terrorists who try to sneak some metal [koppdevelopment.com] somewhere on their body. Messy, but effective.

I may be way off base with this, but that link states that he failed every lie detector test he took.

No, he passed. There's usually something in any poly test that the examiner will point to so he can sweat you a bit. The machine is just a prop, really. The point of the exam is just to subject you to an intense interrogation.

The software in the detector picks up uncontrollable tremors in the voice that give away liars or those with something to hide, say its designers. Passengers that fail the test are then required to undergo further questioning or even search.

Sounds like sufferers of spasmodic dysphonia [wikipedia.org], such as NPR's Diane Rehm [washingtonpost.com] are going to have a hell of a time at airports in the near future...

What about the poor schmuck just excited about going off to visit his mistress? Or his girlfriend, knowing he's about to get his first action in 9 months? Or any member of Congress?

I am pretty sick and tired of these jerkwads coming out with all of this technology that is supposed to protect us from somebody who has nothing better to do all day long than figure out ways to hurt us. And stick me with billions of dollars in expenses for a technology that may or may not catch somebody other than the occasional innocent git or two-bit martyr wanna be. Does it work? "Sorry, for national security reasons we can't tell you how many bad guys we caught or how many innocent guys to whom we gave a cavity probe".

Money isn't the root of all evil anybody who votes for any incumbent is.

"Liberman said around 12 percent of passengers tend to show stress even when they have nothing to hide." And that's from the guy selling the damn thing. So there is a huge false positive rate, and no guarantee of no false negatives.

I've seen gadgets advertised that are supposed to do this over the phone. Your terrorist cell gets one of these and test their guys till they find one or several that can pass.

Voice analyzers and polygraphs (the so-called "lie detector") are frauds. They have both been scientifically proven again and again to be unreliable, with lots of false positives and false negatives, which is why they aren't admissible in court.

The only value to either technology is to scare and threaten. If the person being questioned believes that they work, they are less likely to lie or more likely to admit a lie.

Aldrich Ames, a mole in the CIA, passed a polygraph many, many times, as did lots of others.

Since voice analyzers and polygraph examiners make a shitload of money, and they compete with each other, they are great for pointing out the flaws in each other's devices since the other technology threatens their gravy train.

It's fraud, plain and simple. Flip a coin instead. It's more likely to be accurate than a voice analyzer or polygraph.

You are assuming that there are infinite resources. Suppose there is a screening test that is 95% accurate, but it costs $1000. The cheap screening test is only 70% accurate, but it costs $10. If we have a limited budget for testing, using both tests is more efficient. It costs an average of $310 per person instead of $1000 per person. The number of false positives could be reduced by screening for risk factors before doing any testing.

Of course I'm sure that this device will never fall into the hands of the "bad guys." Thinking from the bad guy perspective, if I were sending people to hijack planes, and they were failing at this device, I'd get my hands on one of them, somehow, through a sympathetic government, bribery, outright theft, whatever.

Then whomever gets the "glory" of murdering innocent civilians has one additional step in the training camp: learning how to calmly lie into the microphone. We don't pack the explosives in his bag until he can pass 10 times out of 10.

I'd much prefer returning to pre-1972 rules where the airlines could decide if you could bring a loaded firearm onto the plane. Those airlines that allowed it would get my business, and the free market would take care of the problem.

If they use it to determine who gets the greater scrutiny in searches (thereby avoiding dangerous profiling) and make it unobtrusive (a microphone in the attendants uniform when he asks if you have packed your bags..etc.) this could be a boon to airport security.

I think we can expect an increase in delayed flights because a bunch of innocent people with quiverring voices have been hauled off for extra questioning while the rest of the passengers wait patiently on the plane. What a crock!

"In our trial, 500 passengers went through the test, and then each was subjected to full traditional searches," said chief executive officer Amir Liberman. "The one person found to be planning something illegal was the one who failed our test."

I can see that they settle for nothing than the most stringent double-blind testing.

I travelled to and from Israel prior to 9/11 and, being the security geek that I am, I found their approach to airport security very interesting. Not only is it utterly different from what we do in the US, but it is obviously devastatingly effective. Israel has been under open attack from terrorists for *decades* and yet they've never, ever had an incident.

What do they do that's different? The whole focus is different. In the US, we focus on the (arguably futile) task of assuring that there are no weapons on the aircraft. In Israel, they focus on assuring that there are no terrorists on the aircraft. Their approach is about screening people more than bags, on the theory that weapons aren't dangerous, people are dangerous.

The screening is intensive, detailed and time-consuming. They do search the bags while they're at it, but the main purpose of searching bags isn't to look for weapons, it's to look for clues and to provoke reactions. I'll describe my experience of going through security in Tel Aviv on the way out of Israel by way of example.

I was travelling with my boss, on business. The first thing they did was to separate us, sending each of us to a different table. At each table were three agents. One of them searched my bag -- *very* thoroughly, picking through it piece by piece. Another asked me questions at a rapid-fire pace, jumping around between who I was, what I was doing, where I had gone, who I had spoken with, who I knew in Israel and what was the purpose and origin of various pieces from my luggage. The questioner was detailed, but not necessarily thorough. He asked about seemingly random things, but inquired in great detail, testing to see how my story would hold together under scrutiny. After asking the names and phone numbers of some people I had met with, he pulled out a phone and actually called one of them and grilled him for a minute! Then he and the agent who had been speaking with my boss stepped away and conferred with one another, obviously cross-checking our stories to see if they matched up.

The third agent at each table just watched. The guy at my table had his eyes glued to me the whole time, watching for any hint of abnormal reaction... it's unbelievable how nervous that made me! But I suppose my reaction was normal.

I can see *exactly* how a lie detector would fit into this model. Even if it didn't actually work, it would make the subject that much more worried and frightened, making it harder for a terrorist to stay calm enough to have all the right reactions. It wouldn't even matter if it gave bad readings from time to time, because in a situation like that, with trained, experienced agents, the lie detector would be just another tool to help both trigger and analyze reactions; it would be the agents themselves that made the decisions about who to investigate further and who to pass on.

Although I would really hate to see what would happen if the US tried to institute a *real* airport security system like the Israelis have, rather than the "security theatre" that we have, I found it very impressive. It sucked royally to be the subject of that scrutiny, even as an honest guy just trying to fly home... it's easy to see why they have such an amazing track record.

I know I'm posting as an A.C., so up front is the basis for my observations: I am a dual-citizen and did my service in the Israeli military. I'm very familar with the security rationale and my closest cousin (practically my older brother) was one of the "Security Selectors" you talk about. (Un?)Fortunately, being Israeli and secular means that I have never been subjected to the intense screening process that non-Israelis endure at border crossings, so I can't speak to the process from personal experience. I have flown in and out of Israel some 80-90 times over the course of my life, and have entered by ship once.

Their approach is about screening people more than bags, on the theory that weapons aren't dangerous, people are dangerous.

Precisely. Your description of the screening process is also dead-on accurate.

However, what works for Israel doesn't necessarily work for the USA. You're right in stating that the goal is to put some stress on the individual to evaluate the strength of their story. The security screeners aren't Einsteins in every field, however anybody (especially trained anybodys) can spot deceptive behavior when they see it. So, like you note, the screeners aren't so interested with the details so much as they are interested in the overall story and making sure it doesn't crumble under scrutiny.

Why is this the tactic that is used? Suicide attacks need somebody willing to commit suicide. Although I am sure there are individuals in this world who can be ice-cold when walking to their own deaths, the overwhelming majority require a little assistance by way of religious fervor to convince themselves that they're simply going to go somewhere "better" when they explode. Israel has a long and sad library of suicide bombers for other means of transportation, and of the few that are caught every once in a while, there is enough data to form a profile. I'll focus on Muslim extremists here, since they account for the overwhelming majority of terrorists: the ones planning the attacks are most often *not* the ones carrying out the attacks. To understand why the security model is built the way it is, it is useful to understand the terrorist food chain and who it is that goes out to perform the attacks:

Note the age difference between planners and executors: planners are old and the executors are young.

Planning takes methodical, careful thought and patience. Execution takes the ability to ignore your evolution for a few minutes and the ability to shoulder some weapons.

If all the planners committed attacks, we would be seeing much fewer attacks.

For all of their talk, the planners are not the ones doing the deeds they profess to believe in. They stay home and send brainwashed teens to do the dirty work. What are the lures?

Sex. Islamic culture is highly prohibitive of sexual behavior outside of marriage, and "Secular" Islam is largely a modern invention that translates roughly to "slightly less than orthodox". Islamic teens are no less horny than the other billion teens on the planet, however where western teens are fooling around at 14, Islamic teens aren't allowed to be alone in a room with a member of the opposite sex, let alone hold hands, until they are (or are practically) married. Under these circumstances, undestand that the promise of 70 virgins waiting for you in heaven can be pretty attractive. Remember when you were a teen and sex made you think backwards?

Shame. Islamic culture is also highly prohibitive of deviant behavior. Homosexuality among Islamic culture is more than just "frowned upon". There is no reason to believe that the incidence of homosexuality among the members of the Islamic faith are any different than any other faith on the globe. The incidence of homosexuality among males cited in the Kinsey report is 10% if I remember correctly, so even assume a 5% rate or a 2.5% rate, you have a quite a few homosexuals living very much in the closet. T

I said in my post, I would not want the US to try to implement a security process similar to that used in Israel. I have a few reasons for that, which I didn't get into in my (already long) post.

First, as you said, there's no way it could be done without someone screaming "abuse" and filing a lawsuit claiming their civil rights were violated. As irritating as such things often are (and they are often crap), I think that is one of the best things t

I want to see the airplane problem solved by taking away the entire motive.

Great idea. Unfortunately that's not so easy...

Rip out the ENTIRE cockpit and have the plane flown on autopilot from takeoff to landing.

Great. Them the terrorists don't actually have to enter the plain, they just have to hack into it. However, I guess it's a great way to reduce cost for the airlines, and security would be a great excuse to make the passengers accept it:-)

i've flown on El Al a few times. invariably they find something they don't like about me after 30-45 minutes of questions. the last time i flew them i asked the questioner to call their supervisor, and then just asked that they search me. they asked me to calm down, etc. and i explained that i had no desire to go through the interrogation and that it would be easier for both of us if they just searched me. so yeah, let them search me.

The company that makes this, NemesysCo. [nemesysco.com], has a whole line of voice analysis products, some of which are downloadable. At the bottom of the line, there's "Love Detector" [nemesysco.com]. Only $19.99 for Pocket PC, $49.95 for Windows PC.

Then there's the cellular phone "Love Detector" service. [thelovedetector.co.uk] You call someone via their system, and after the call, you get an SMS message with their analysis. (TV commercial here. [love-detector.com] In Hebrew, for the Israeli version.)

Moving up the product line a bit, they offer Ex-Sense [ex-sense.com], their low-end lie detector product. Only $149, including phone connector cable. Screenshots here. [ex-sense.com]

Then there's Ex-Sense Pro [nemesysco.com], at $499. Unclear what you get with the "Pro" version.

Although I would really hate to see what would happen if the US tried to institute a *real* airport security system like the Israelis have, rather than the "security theatre" that we have, I found it very impressive.

The only worse thing I can imagine than the farse that is American airport security, is the possibility that some day they might actually successfully implement true security. I thought society was taking a step forward since you no longer need papers to travel inside Russia, or passports to go between France and Germany. I dread travelling now, because it offends me to have to take off my shoes and belt at the airport to maintain the illusion of security. But how much worse would it be when they confiscate my laptop because I could make an explosive from the battery in about three seconds? Or when I'm detained indefinitely because I'm a 20-something travelling alone, and I happen to be carrying a Quoran for some leisure reading.

In my life, terror doesn't come from desperate fundamentalists. Terror is the government trying to control every aspect of the way I live and the way I think. I can only hope that it's not too late to undo the damage. Vote while you still can! And pray, if you're into that sort of thing.

Firstly, this kind of thing is based on the assumption that even a 'bad guy' will somehow feel bad about what their are about to do, and there will feel under emotional stress. Two of the most dangerous kinds of persons, psychopaths and suicide terrorists, are not likely to to fall into this category. Psychopaths don't care, simply, they will lie or contemplate atrocities like normal people would think about buying a bottle of milk. And a person who has decided to die has overcome the fear; it is a wellknown phenomenon that a person who wants to commit suicide often enters a phase of perfect calm and contentment when the decision has been made.

Secondly, as others point out, a lot of people feel very bad about small transgressions. I remember one lady who felt very nervous because she had bought 1 small bottle of alcohol over the limit and was afraid to get caught. So are we now going to catch all those who are under a bit of strain, but let through the really dangerous ones?